Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[BugI02]

No. it's because Trump doesn't have as much political capital as he thinks he does. Said another way, it's politically safe enough in most districts to go against trump, depending on the issue.

Gee, does that mean they don't fear him or any consequences he could subject them to?

Sounds familiar, somehow

 

[T.Lex]

No. it's because Trump doesn't have as much political capital as he thinks he does. Said another way, it's politically safe enough in most districts to go against trump, depending on the issue.

I'm not sure that's been confirmed yet.

Midterms will tell the tale.

The incumbents may FEEL safe - and indeed, they may actually BE safe. But, due in part to the surprise factor of Trump actually being elected, I think there's room for doubt about whether the conventional wisdom will hold true.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

VP Pence just cast tie-breaking vote on bill to rollback Obama rule protecting grants to family planning groups that perform abortions.

 

[Thor]

Midterms will tell the tale.

Only if they are opposed in the primaries. Having conservatives, or even 70% conservatives, defeated by Dumbocrats would only suit a few here who troll for angsts sake.

 

[T.Lex]

Only if they are opposed in the primaries. Having conservatives, or even 70% conservatives, defeated by Dumbocrats would only suit a few here who troll for angsts sake.

I'm not sure how to take that.

But, I guess I could've been clearer - the midterms, including the primaries, will tell the tale. You could have moderates (both D and R) with primary challengers from their "safe" flank. Then, the general election will be a choice of opposites.

 

[jamil]

Gee, does that mean they don't fear him or any consequences he could subject them to?

Sounds familiar, somehow

I don't see any reason why they'd need to fear HIM. Voters, yeah. Hence, political capital.

 

[Leadeye]

Paid the health insurance bill today.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yep that's what happened. No more healthcare. None. You just can't have healthcare anymore, women. That's how it went down.

Dip****s..

 

[churchmouse]

Yep that's what happened. No more healthcare. None. You just can't have healthcare anymore, women. That's how it went down.

Dip****s..

You should read some of this crap on face book.

 

[ATM]

I'm glad women's health care is finally gone, that was a horrible few years that they had it.

 

[BugI02]

I don't see any reason why they'd need to fear HIM. Voters, yeah. Hence, political capital.

Then people didn't fear J. Edgar (the one wielding the power) but instead it was fear of the hordes of functionaries he commanded. Who would have guessed

'Political capital' sounds more like something built up through back-scratching and log rolling. Machiavelli would not approve

 

[actaeon277]

Yep that's what happened. No more healthcare. None. You just can't have healthcare anymore, women. That's how it went down.

Dip****s..

Another example, of people thinking if the government doesn't do it, no one will. They can NOT even imagine life without Big Brother.

 

[jamil]

Then people didn't fear J. Edgar (the one wielding the power) but instead it was fear of the hordes of functionaries he commanded. Who would have guessed

'Political capital' sounds more like something built up through back-scratching and log rolling. Machiavelli would not approve

Wait a minute. J. Edgar Hoover? As I recall, the controversy about J. Edgar is that he abused his power, creating a sort of secret police to execute dirty tricks against political enemies. So, are you're saying that FC members fear that Trump will abuse his power in the same way Hoover did? Saying FC members fear Trump and not the voters means something I would hope that you would not want to apply to a president you voted for.

Political capital means the ethos, pathos, and logos that a politician has earned of the public, either deserved or not. A politician with high political capital has a lot of power to get things done, because the people general support the politician. Reagan had that, the highest point of which was probably right after his reelection in 1984. You win landslides in popularity and you get to do some stuff you want.

Trump seemed to have a lot of political capital right after the election, but he's apparently spent most of it on Twitter. He doesn't have the political capital to challenge everyone in the freedom caucus. Justin Amash, for example, could probably tell Trump to go **** a donut, and next election would likely win reelection in his typical landslide. However, the FC members in districts where Trump has overwhelming and fiercely loyal supporters, likely would fear losing an election.

When politicians get their power from the people, it is the people they fear, not other politicians. If politicians fear other politicians, then those politicians they fear are likely usurping power they shouldn't have.

 

[BugI02]

"Look, I came here for an argument!"

But seriously, your last post (#853) tells me we are essentially on the same page

["When politicians get their power from the people, it is the people they fear, not other politicians"] What I spoke to was the politician acting as the lense through which the ire of the people is focused and directed. You touch on my point when you mention FC members in districts where Trump has a high degree of support. Do you believe that these politiicians would be circumspect in their dealings with Trump because that support exists, or would they be more concerned about Trump appealing directly to his support to affect their actions or prospects for re-election? Would not fear (of losing their next election) be the motivating factor in behavior modification?

I wasn't indicating I thought polticians should inspire fear like Stalin or Duvalier or Perón. More like in the case of say LBJ before he became president, or Tip O'Neill - the understanding that to cross them politically could and would have real consequences. Without that 'fear' (or respect or gravitas - whatever) politicians will dither and grandstand predominantly to support what they see as their own best interests at the expense of all else

And how did we come to limit this discussion to just the FC. They are the topic of the moment, but the need for political people to 'fear' the consequences of crossing the administration should be operative all across the spectrum except where people are taking a true stand of conscience. People standing on principle should do so consequences be damned, but it is hoped that it would be recognized for what it is and this would have mitigating effects. The essential difference between, say Snowden and Manning

ETA: Remember what Machiavelli said about the choice between being loved or feared. He had a clear preference

 

[jamil]

"Look, I came here for an argument!"

But seriously, your last post (#853) tells me we are essentially on the same page

["When politicians get their power from the people, it is the people they fear, not other politicians"] What I spoke to was the politician acting as the lense through which the ire of the people is focused and directed. You touch on my point when you mention FC members in districts where Trump has a high degree of support. Do you believe that these politiicians would be circumspect in their dealings with Trump because that support exists, or would they be more concerned about Trump appealing directly to his support to affect their actions or prospects for re-election? Would not fear (of losing their next election) be the motivating factor in behavior modification?

I wasn't indicating I thought polticians should inspire fear like Stalin or Duvalier or Perón. More like in the case of say LBJ before he became president, or Tip O'Neill - the understanding that to cross them politically could and would have real consequences. Without that 'fear' (or respect or gravitas - whatever) politicians will dither and grandstand predominantly to support what they see as their own best interests at the expense of all else

And how did we come to limit this discussion to just the FC. They are the topic of the moment, but the need for political people to 'fear' the consequences of crossing the administration should be operative all across the spectrum except where people are taking a true stand of conscience. People standing on principle should do so consequences be damned, but it is hoped that it would be recognized for what it is and this would have mitigating effects. The essential difference between, say Snowden and Manning

ETA: Remember what Machiavelli said about the choice between being loved or feared. He had a clear preference

I hope you don't mind that I de-tealed that. Don't know why but it messes with my eyes.

I kinda agree on some points. But disagree on "should". I don't want there to be politicians powerful enough to cause political consequences for going against them. I want every member to be free to be independent. Representatives are supposed to be the people's voice. Some remote district in the middle of nowhere Idaho may have a different priorities than everyone else, but they have their voices represented in congress. If their representative has to be afraid of the consequences a powerful politician can wage against her/him instead of being afraid of his/her own constituents, that tends to squash the people's voice. LBJ is in the top 5 worst ********** presidents in history. Much of that is earned by fear of the dirty tricks he could pull to get things done.

The people weren't heard when it came to Nancy Pelosi strong-arming her caucus into supporting Obamacare. They passed it partly by using back scene dirty tricks. How else do laws that are widely unpopular get passed? Fear. Powerful politicians having too much power. The Republicans who didn't support this last bill have a right to follow the path of what they were elected to do. That's the voice of their constituents speaking through their representatives. Those representatives should only fear the will of their constituents.

 

[BugI02]

[snip] Some remote district in the middle of nowhere Idaho may have a different priorities than everyone else, but they have their voices represented in congress. If their representative has to be afraid of the consequences a powerful politician can wage against her/him instead of being afraid of his/her own constituents, that tends to squash the people's voice. [snip]

Agreed, with one caveat. Is Congressman Smith listening to his constituents or AgriEthanolCo. And if he is the deciding vote in something of national significance, say defecting from party line and preventing the confirmation of Gorsuch even after nuclear is invoked; he should not expect to avoid the **** storm

Teal is beautiful

Colorist

 

[jamil]

Agreed, with one caveat. Is Congressman Smith listening to his constituents or AgriEthanolCo. And if he is the deciding vote in something of national significance, say defecting from party line and preventing the confirmation of Gorsuch even after nuclear is invoked; he should not expect to avoid the **** storm

Teal is beautiful

Colorist

Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder. Your beholder is obviously broken.

Sure. If the representative is not listening to his constituents and is listening more to big money there should be political consequences.

 

[BugI02]

It's a 4917Å thing, you wouldn't understand

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Word now that the HFC has negotiated a deal brought on by the White House... Meadows, Jordan, Labrador are now supportive of the changed healthcare bill.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Freedom Caucus endorses Obamacare repeal compromise - POLITICO